Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail, the Bench of Rajendra Badamikar, J., observed that google search disclosures or google reviews indicating that an individual has cheated number of persons, cannot be accepted, as google reviews do not have any legal evidentiary value.
The complainant was doing business of lamp oil in respect of which, she had opened the bank account in the Axis Bank, Kumaraswamy layout branch. When she searched in Google for liquid paraffin in respect of manufacturing of the lamp-oil, she came in contact with the petitioner-accused who was dealing with supply of paraffin. The complainant via e-mail transaction initially paid Rs. 52,39,400 in two installments by way of NEFT to the account of the petitioner-accused; however, the petitioner-accused only supplied the goods worth of Rs. 26,31,611.
She tried to contact the petitioner-accused several times through the mobile-phone but received no response. Hence, she was constrained to lodge a complaint under Sections 419, 420 of Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000.
On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered against the petitioner-accused and the petitioner apprehending his arrest approached the Trial Court. But the Civil Judge rejected the anticipatory bail petition.
The counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that he does not have any intention of cheating the complainant and that he has to get the goods from the foreign country and due to the war between the Ukraine and Russia, there was delay in supply of the consignment, so he could not supply the goods to the complainant.
Per contra, the respondents contended that the petitioner-accused is a habitual offender and the same can be traced through the google search wherein the review discloses that he has cheated a number of people in this regard.
Perusing the facts and contentions of the case, the Court observed that Section 419, IPC is not attracted in the instant case as there is no impersonation and the only allegation is that of cheating.
The Court also disagreed with the contention of respondent concerning the petitioner’s google reviews and stated that google reviews have no illegal evidentiary value.
The Court did not find an impediment to refuse the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the petition was allowed with suitable conditions and directions.
[Om Pratap Singh v. The Station House Officer, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8879/2022, decided on 13-10-2022]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
R. Gopala Krishnan, Advocate for the Petitioner;
Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for the Respondent.
*Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has prepared this brief.
